Printable View
[QUOTE=alwaysinjured;579730][QUOTE=IanDarkpeak;579716]I would say it depends on many things, weather, person missing, is he/she alone, terrain they are missing in, time to night fall?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lecky
got to leave now...going to Lads leap.
Will answer OB1 on my return
AI, how do you see all the work that the committee has put into the new rules as anything other than doing this? Yes I know you meant in terms of incidents rather than discussion, but can't you trust the committee to integrate both?Quote:
Originally Posted by alwaysinjured
As you know I also had deep reservations with the early versions of the new rules. Many of these issues (and poor choices of wording) have been revised. It no longer reads as if safety can be achieved by 'rote', a disastrous approach which could have the counter-productive effect of making people think they are safe, instead of thinking about safety. This has been fixed, or if you do not agree, then tell me how it has not been fixed. The wording related to minimum kit, although long-winded and slightly unclear, does ultimately conform to your model: a rule of competition, with extra kit being recommended as the competitor (or RO) deems necessary.
It would help if you could be more precise what you still have a problem with ~ how is your (Anni Waltz) alternative not based on volenti? It seems even more reliant on volenti than the FRA's approach. The FRA defines basic safety requirements and guidelines that could be used to indicate that due diligence and duty of care have been taken. Do you not agree that the impossible demands made in the early documents, which could have led almost every RO to be found negligent, have been sufficiently updated?
I have the impression that the rules from the FRA, SHR and as put together for Anni Waltz are converging towards the same general idea. If I am wrong (aside from the lengthy & repetitious nature of the FRA documents), how so?
Often your procedural suggestions and criticisms of wordings are very good. I hope that GB can at least concede those two points? And I would say many of these have been included in the current rules, such as appropriate use of "must", and the myriad of good practice documents. Your marshal checklists and written plans sound like a compellingly good idea, and is probably followed at least partially by many ROs already. What is needed (might be) to change that "probably" to an "always" and the "partially" to a "thoroughly/systematically". Again, is it very different from the current procedures?
To look at the safety & rules document now online, the biggest issues I can find are:
Although this at least recognizes that mistakes are inevitable, it still suggests perfection is achievable. Would this always amount to negligence? It's a tricky question.. I've seen 'independent' counters at the finish line corroborating their results (so undermining the secondary system). This needs to be clearly communicated to marshals.Quote:
Must recognise that no system of counting competitors (starting, retiring and finishing) is free from potential failure and so must have a secondary check to get an accurate count
And the highly pedantic:I would have put "automatic right", otherwise it says (in my mind) that no-one is ever allowed to enter any race. :rolleyes:Quote:
No potential competitor has the right to enter any FRA race and a Race Organiser is free to refuse entry on any grounds including doubt that a competitor can safely complete the race.
But then I would take "agenda items may include ..." to mean it would be limited to the listed items.
You should note that the AGM is meant to be a relatively brief formality. Serious items for debate should be taken to a regular committee meeting. And if anyone continues to be unhappy with the committee's running of the FRA, it would be up to such parties to propose other candidates for the key posts and vote for them at the AGM. In reality the volunteer-run FRA is rarely inundated with offers for the committee posts.
Finally, your Grande Raid reference: from finding a handful of details, and this is a case that has run on for years, progressing to a civil court claim after the criminal court found the organisers not guilty of negligence: How is it not irresponsible to stop a race like that at midnight? My feelings would be that the decision needed to be made a couple of hours or so before dusk.
Given I have moved from strongly agreeing with you last summer, to struggling to see what more it is that you now want/propose, you can understand that many others will be even more mystified what you are currently campaigning for.
Absolutely wrong - and your contribution to this thread are just as emotive and useless - in using words such as belligerent rather than addressing the issues I raised.Quote:
Originally Posted by noel
I have sketched the alternative numerous times in a general way - including the need to construct race plans in a specific way - although you need to get your head round safety is a process not just a document so I have referred to many things needed, not just that. If you have not seen that you have not been reading before criticise me.
One aspect of failed process - The fact of the committee accepting hopelessly flawed rules in the past demonstrates the process for approval is wrong and all the committee are culpable for that, Another aspect of failed process the secretary presenting untested documents as good practice which has already caused problems. I could list another fifty without breaking sweat. The whole thing has been bungled.
I have offered in conjunction with Andy to prepare and do a presentation and create such documentation, offered many times, but that has been refused. And I am no longer willing to waste my time on people who seem to let hurt feelings that they have a case to answer for past failings , and they let it get in the way of good judgement.
It is not a simple subject and is not amenable to hundred word posts.
The main counterproductive problem is the determination of people to stay in control of a process who are inexperienced and unqualified and in which they made egregious and basic errors, the outright refusal to hear a presentation on what should be done by someone qualified to comment- and the risible overinflated senses of self importance that radiate from those concerned.
I notice you do not criticise the chair for her disgraceful remarks, ( and insults from behind a welter of multiple personalities) that I / we have had to contend - you only refer only me
The chairs statement to coroner demonstrates she is cloud cuckoo land. She clearly does not know the meaning of "reasonably practicable" or would not have used it in the way she did. But that is the problem. Amateurish meddling in serious matters.
As for the committee - the malfeasance and manipulation was clear and demonstrable in the matters to do with Andy. Why the committee put up with it is beyond me.
But that comes to the other main issue and point I just made. No majority view of an unqualified group of people can or should attempt to define safety of gas installations either - so the view of majority is largely irrelevant. That is why corporate safety demands competent and SQUEP people are given authority.
I have sketched many parts of the solution here on these threads. if you have not been reading, more fool you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by alwaysinjured
Why is it OK on this forum to be this insulting?
Post 72 appears to close the matter for me.
I notice that AI hasn't provided his own set of safety documents and is still spending a lot of time simply attacking people that disagree with him.
What would he be doing otherwise? Should I feel guilty for keeping him away from helpful matters, or are we usefully keeping him off the streets?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lecky
Noel, I always feel better doing something if I have a gripe, rather than just complaining.
Apologies if this seems condescending but it seems that at least some posts on here would suggest that the following needs to be said...
1. Conscious competence = knowing what you know
2. Unconscious competence = not knowing what you know
3. Conscious incompetence = knowing what you don't know
4. Unconscious incompetence = not knowing what you don't know.
Perhaps you should all ask yourselves individually...
a) Where do you rate in SQEP terms for safety management? If it any doubt, then ROs should seek advice. In England, this historically has been from the FRA as the point of wisdom. The debate has been on how sound that updated and republished advise now is. Considerable and substantive questions appear to have been asked. An Qualified Authority (let's call them an "adjudicator") in these case would be required. Such an adjudicator needs to be highly expert and qualified to make a ruling. They need to be SQEP. So....
b) And are you happy that the FRA committee on behalf of the FRA membership declined the offer of a fully qualified (SQEP) safety manager to sit on the Safety committee? (and thus this whole 'debate' could have been avoided and sorted months ago).
The FRA is no longer a club. It is a corporate entity and as such has corporate responsibilities and liabilities. It became a Ltd. company for, chief amongst other reason, to protect the Officers and Committee from individual liabilities. But this 'shield' does not in corporate law protect against personal negligence.
Since the tragic incident at Sailbeck, and as a Race organiser I have followed the various threads deleted or not, on the safety issues, even read through all of Mike’s epic posts.
I have tried to keep out of the debate, trying to see both sides of the argument.
But I have watched while prominent members of theFRA Committee have got into unprofessional public mudslinging matches, when something appears which doesn’t toe the line.
They have sent out in a panic endless reams of hurriedly drafted rules, most pre-empting the Coroners report some which were contradictory, which have only added to the confusion for RO’s
Members of the committee have even resorted to sending out PM’s warning RO’s basically to not listen to the poisoned ill informed ranting of certain people on the forum.
One committee member admitting mistakes have been made, but still they will not listen to advise, from people who may and probably do have something to bring to the table.
Isn’t it funny that the Anniversary Waltz, Herods Farm and the Pendle Cloughs Fell Races all having withdrawn there FRA permits have been taken off the FRA Online events page even though races with no FRA permit still remain and are continued to be added to the list? This is the sort of petty persecution the committee have resorted to if someone speaks out against there policies
Over the past months I increasingly felt that something was fundamentally wrong with the FRA LTD way of managing the Safety rules and its way of managing other issues. I have even spoken to the HS manager at work regarding the Safety issues and how it should be dealt with.
I eventually came to my own conclusions and decided to withdraw my FRA permit and look at other alternatives.
Since this time I have insured the Race through Scottish Hill Runners and started to produce a Race Management Plan for the race, and all I will say is this, what Mike as been saying all along is starting to make sense.
This is only my opinion, but I am only a Race Organiser so what would I now?
Andrew Hirst
RO Pendle Cloughs Fell Race
I find this startling. Of course I agree with what you have posted Andrew, but as the FRA have already said that they are fine with non FRA Races being listed this does show whoever is behind this in a very poor light.Quote:
Originally Posted by studmarks
I hope that the majority of the committee deal with this before they are all tarred with the same brush. That would be a shame.